quick couple of responses-
@Herr Mike- thanks, I am all about the love, babe.
@Null - Not quite true to say that lobby groups represent the top 1%. For instance, a lot of social groups are also lobby groups. Sierra Club- does it represent the top 1%. The most powerful ethnic lobbies- Jews, Greeks, etc- represent more than the top 1%. Nader's groups, many legal aid societies, church groups- etc. Lobby groups represent both a wide range of interests and people. and articulate their interests in a lot of ways.
And that power should not be under-appreciated. There are two ways to challenge law- through legislation and through the courts. Lobby groups can be very powerful mechanisms for bringing action on behalf of social interests.
COnsider- Sierra Club need only to introduce one person as a plaintiff to bring an action to force the government to comply with the law.
It was individuals, afterall, that were bringing to court cases on water pollution under the ancient Rivers and Harbors Act, that got the Supreme Court interested in Environmental Law when Congress was unwilling to touch the issue because it was too politically hot. Likewise, it was the power of the lawsuit that got the Surpreme Court to preempt Congress on matters of civil rights.
Conservatives tend to criticize the Supreme Court for being "activist" but I say thank god. Often they will resolve issues that are necessary and essential when members of Congress are to pussy to act.
The problem of corruption - is more complex than often appreciated. There's a book Crony Capitalism- by Kang that looks at corruption in the Philippines and South Korea- that explores this difference. South Korea develops not because it isn't corrupt. It certainly corrupt, but corrupt with significant differences.
To go back to Herr Mike's Imperial France and Soviet Union suffered significantly wrong to say that the US is free of it, or are most governments.
The question may be one of degree and opportunity. Individuals are both self-interested rational actors and also social creatures. As social creatures we form collectives to get things done. As rational actors - we go for incentives and will often breach the rules when we think we can get away with it and the benefits are sufficient.
The question may have more to do with what the rules are, the incentive structure and the opportunities. Patronage is rampant in feudal and imperial systems, while a powerful bureaucrat can use his influence in a highly authoritarian system and a sleazy politican can sell his vote in some democratic systems. Its hard to assume that a Brazilian policeman won't sell his services to the highest bidder when he makes less than the cost of living.
So its in the opportunity that one finds corruption. We are all self-seeking rational actors and given the right opportunity, will free ride or even screw each other.
Which is one of the reasons we have literature, art and film.
As for rulers- you argue that we should assume that rulers are just like people- some will do the "right thing" and others will do the "wrong thing". In reality, yes that might be true.
But there are a couple problems with that if you want to generalize or develop theory.
(1) Without opening up skulls, its hard to know what is in a leader's head. What motivated them to act on a particular rule.
(2) Tested across many cases we find a whole lot more political leaders are prone to abuse power if given the opportunity. Even the virtuous are prone to occasions of despotism.
(3) Given doubt, best to keep them bitches in line.
Assume the worst and you may be pleasantly surprised. Assume the best, and you'll be disappointed. I like surprises.
I believe in a healthy dose of skeptism- That if a ruler is to gain my loyalty, we got to see the proof that they deserve it. We need always remind them that they rule at our behalf- at least if we are a democracy.
YOu got to keep these bastards accountable and one way to do that is a bit of existential fear. This is why I think Scooter and Rove should be tried for treason for Valerie Palme and shot, why Bush should be impeached for lieing to the US about weapons of mass destruction, why corporate CEOs should be executed if they embezzle for $1 million, why drug dealers who make $1 million per year should be shot. I'm a bit brutal, but hey, there's a price that comes with power.
As for the FDA- let's not forget that a lot of the early narcotics addiction- use of opiates, cocaine, etc were largely the result of a lack of regulation over pharmaceuticals in the 19th Century. Heroin was made public initially as a less addictive pain reliever than morphine.
A case of unregulation- In China, companies tore through dense forests to make chopsticks that were later sent to Japan. The loss of trees led to all sorts of bad environmental consequences. When the government figured out what happened and that it had to replant the trees- the damage had been done and cost of replanting trees was greater than the profit on chopsticks.
Companies serve stockholders and owners. Some business theorists also express this idea of stack holders (which I think is mostly bullshit). Companies are like any other rational actor- they are self-seeking rational creatures that will exploit opportunity to the detriment of others. Too much of that- and its a disaster in the making.
Four main activities of a state- internal order, employing a military, maintaining a communications infrastructure, and a fair economic market.
A good discussion can be found here-
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/mann/Doc1.pdf
Mann is fucking awesome.
